Morning journal and courier., 1887-03-10

l lutiOns Adopted in Remembrance of
 Henry Ward Beecher-The Commit
 tee Hearings-The Fisheries Commit.
 tee Finish Hearing Testimony on
 the Abolition of the Shell Fish Com.
 mission.
 HARTFORD, March g, 9,ss1997.
 Special to the JOURNAL AND CoUR1ERl
 There was considerable business of impor-
 tance transacted by the lawmakers to-day.
 An amended bill preventing druggists from
 making more than one sale on prescription
 for liquor unless he knows that it is not to
 be used beverage passed the House on
 the closest vote yet taken-104 to 1O1. A
 resolution was introduced eulogizing the late
 Henry Ward Beecher found below.) There
 were many important committee hearings.
 chief among which were the fisheries, the federal relations, judiciary and finance. The adjourned hearing on the bill abolish
 ing the shell fish commission was resumed before the fisheries committee this after
 noon. It was announced before the hearing began that the testimony would be finished
 during the afternoon. The first witness
 called by Attorney Maltbie for the commis
 sion was William A. Cummings, a well l known oysterman of Stamford. He said
 ''The commission has given excellent satis-
 faction. Why abolish it? There is great
 confidence placed in it by our oystermen
 Disputes settled by them seldom, if ever,
 come up again. Their decision is regarded
 as final. We do not want experimental
 business. The oyster industry, which is
 now in very prosperous condition, and to
 the able management of this commission
 most of this is due, will suffer if you throw
 them out after having performed good faith l full work and place in power one man, who
 can be handled perhaps as some men see l ft"
 Thomas Cummings of Stamford, was the | next witness. ''The commission should not
 be abolished" said MT. Cummings. "It
 should be at least allowed to finish up it's | work. We oystermen don't want any one-
 man power. By all means, gentlemen, con
 tinue the commission"
 William R Mansfield, of Fair Haven, was next called and proved very acceptable wit ness, giving his information in 8 clear, l straightforward manner. "I own about 1, 300
 acres of oyster ground,'' said MT. Mansfield,
 land have about 500 acres under cultivation. l don't think that the commission has finish | ed the work for which they were placed in power. There is much more for them to do. I don't think the oystermen would care to have disputes settled by any one-man power: The commission has in the past set tied all disputes amicably and justly" Richard A. Law, jr., of New Haven, said:
 'I own about eight hundred acres of ground, of which four hundred are under cultivation.
 I am strongly opposed to the abolition of ! this commission which has performed its
 work faithfully and we'll" MT. Laws testi- mony Twas to the point and took the same I view as most of the oystermen who were in favor and whose testimony has already been | printed.
 Ellwood Smith, of New Haven, caused quite little sensation by his testimony. ''The l committee should not be abolished for any consideration. It gives stability to the busi l ness I had an experience which thoroughly l disguested me some time ago. I wanted 10
 locate some oyster ground and went to the | town clerks office in Fair Haven to examine l the East Haven records. What was my sur | prise to find that they had been carried off | by MT. Henry c. Rowe and were in his pos
 session. Now if you abolish this commission
 and place in power one man why the oyster
 men cannot be properly cared for and will
 suffer-"
 Caleb L. Ludington, of Fair Haven, was ! next called and proved a very interesting | witness. He was strongly opposed to the | abolishing of the commission and the placing | in power of any man. MT. Ludington ! was for a long period of time chairman of | the town oyster committee and has been in | the oyster business ever since he was young man, and he is now we'll advanced in years. He is thoroughly posted in reference to the | culture of oysters. By all means keep the l commission D said he; Git has done good | work and should not be abolished. There is ! much more work for it to do. I don't be- | lieve in trying any experiments at this time. The business would undoubtedly suffer" " MT. Ludington was cross examined by the opposing attorneys, but came out ahead and answered their questions in quite laughable manner. He was the last witness to testi- fy and was followed by Albert F. Fineils, secretary of the Oystermen's Protective asso- citation and Industrial nnion of Sound Beach, who made a strong and pointed argument to | the committee against the abolishing of the commission, which, in his opinion, would be a great evil not alone to the large growers, but to the three thousand small | cultivators, who would have no pro- \ lection at all in reality if the commission had to go He didn't believe that man
 could properly manage the business | that the commission is now do- I ing. 'The maps that they are working on not completed" ! said he, land there are likely to arise at any ' time disputes in which the disputants do not care to resort to the courts, but would be perfectly willing to abide by the decision of ! the commission. I think there is plenty of work remaining to be done for the commits sion. We should try no experiment, as the legislature does not meet again for two years, and if the one-man power does not prove successful, why we'd be in pretty mess." Letters were read from Captain Charles H. Townsend, who sailed for Europe last Satur- day, and one from Smith Bros., of Oyster Point. Both were strongly in favor of hav- ing the commission retained. The hearing was adjourned to March % at 1O:3O a. m., when the arguments will commence
 The judiciary committed held very inter estirp nearing this afternoon at which sev eral bills and resolutions on different mat ters were given a hearing. The resolution directing inquiry as to the expenditure of in- come of the agricultural college was the first matter taken up. MT. Hubbard, of Middletown, was the first witness called. MT. Hubbard said: ''The only question before the committee is whether the State was under the agreement in honor bound to continue ! this payment to Yale, and not a second
 resolution directing an sa1 examination N ana reports Dy the COuLulLGSS Ou agriculture" MT. Hubbard said the State grange had considered the matter ' and reported resolutions asking the Sheffield ' school to state it's case and the legislature to | take such action the required. The | Sheffield school had made long and able statement of it's case. The contract with \ Yale college had been called perfected, but ' this was the very question at issue. The ' contract contained no explicit statement that | it was perpetual. MT. E. D. Robbins called attention to the act of Congress which pro ' vides that each State shall provide for the \ support of an agricultural college. The ap- ! propriation was made by Connectl- cut on condition bhat ale college should provide school \ under the terms prescribed. The question ! for this committee is net merely whether the contract is binding as law, but whether it is \ binding in honor. Professor Brush gave 8 history of the establishment of the school at New Haven and it's developments since The
 school was inspected yearly on behalf of the
 State. with special reference to the perfor-
 nance of it's part of the contract. MT. Hub